This should help, Gnostic vs. Agnostic Atheism

What doesn't it have to do with being an atheist in realizing the depth and mechanics of the emotion?

When we believe the emotion is everything and the very purpose to our existence, the complexity in it's offering becomes infinite in it's potential, not just the mere mechanics of our physical being.
Just want to make sure that everyone is aware of the implications of belief or a lack thereof.

 

THIS:

if you accept it to be a reasonable position, would apply to everyone, regardless of whther they are atheists or not.

if you don't think so, then explain why in plain english.

 

The point if you would care to go back and read is that religion and the bible does a very poor job of explaining where the emotion originates from, declaring it to come from the heart because of what is observed by what adrenaline does to the body.

How cute, you actually think that I accept that the bible is the word of God?
Hopefully I have displayed that I am far too intelligent for that!

 

you might have displayed that you have some very confused thinking ...

but to be perfectly honest, I'm beginning to think that you believe atheists should be brutally dispassionately honest about emotions, analysing them down to the minutest chemical compound, and to the point of losing the nuance of what it means to be human.

At the same time, you do not believe this same requirement should apply to believers, but I am not sure why. Perhaps you believe that they are more vulnerable (hence the need to believe in God) and therefore they have a psychological need to continue to dress things up in more pleasing terms to avoid the distress of dealing with cold hard facts?

is that your point?

 

What I believe and attribute the emotion to is unimportant to this discussion, for me it is a very personal experience..... Do I believe that love is a simple and mindless component of our physical being, an emotional regurgitation to feed a chemical stimuli? No, I do not!
If in reality the emotion is a lie, it is a lie that I am happy to tell myself that is able to facilitate my well being as well as the well being of humanity and the expressive potential that it has to offer within me.
Even if I was the one to have created the meaning out of nothingness, the depth and color by which I would do so creates such a beautiful canvas of the mind...... I am a creative being because I choose to be, I choose to give it depth and meaning.... The brilliance that I am unable to deny is that it doesn't change it's offering in what proves to be true within my mortality.

 

Why are you here on this portion of the religious forum?
Are you here to offer something to the mind?
What do you hope to accomplish in your presence here?
What kind of stimuli do you receive?

 

so why do you try to denigrate the value of other people's emotional experience?

and do you think this is unique to people who believe in God?

is this unique to people who believe in God?

 

why are you posting in a thread on Gnostic vs. Agnostic Atheism?

what has that got to do with your experience of emotions?

is it that your emotional life is not as you say, and that you are seeking some kind of stimulus that can make you feel more emotionally alive?

do you want to get all worked up and "emotional" arguing with atheists?

 

Oh come on, if I was searching to have questions answered with questions that project away from an answer, I'll start a discussion with a Christian

 

how does that answer either of the previous two posts?

 

Again, I want it to be understood what the capacity of depth concerning emotion is as it pertains to what one believes or what one doesn't believe....
How then do you come to the conclusion that it is my attempt to denigrate value?

 

regardless of what we believe, we are all human.

this seems to be forgotten sometimes by some believers.

 

I don't even begin to make statements concerning the existence of God or relating parameters, nor do I make statements concerning the nonexistence of God or it's parameters...... I certainly can discuss the implications in doing so in either example!
I have not placed myself in the position of criticism, you are the one that does so and then questions me when I simply define it's walls? You sound exactly like a Christian! Of course all cages within their defined points of absolutism look alike and accomplish the same thing.

 

I have difficulty understanding what your position is.

it seems that you want to explain your own experience of emotion as being different from what other people should experience.

I am not realy sure at all what your point is.

most atheists I know just live their lives and don't think about the influence of biology on their emotions - anymore than most christians do, but it seems that you insist that we should.

if this is true for atheists, it should also be true for everyone else.

 

We have a similar problem, Christians just live their lives according to the bible that it is the word of God and don't think about the depth of what it is that they believe.....
I feel emotion, so why does it matter where it comes from?
If the reality doesn't match the meaning or intensity of attachment we place upon it, shouldn't it be important to think about it's influence?
I mean if emotion has the power to make us into irrational beings, how is it any different than the belief in a Christian God making one into an irrational being?
I mean really, if love is just a byproduct of the evolution of our species, why would we allow it to have any control of our thought and actions?
Biology alone gave you the desire to have a child, a leach suckling from your teat.... It consumes your life, yet the attachment of emotion to that child makes you into a highly irrational being sacrificing everything to have and care for that child.... Intellectually, we are in a population growth crisis, it's not like it serves a purpose having that child.... It's also a financial, social and temporal burden.... Emotion and the desire surrounding it with zero depth has this much power over intellect? WHY?
Foolishness!

 

If we look at the huge emotional investment we make in our lives and all the irrational acts surrounding that investment..... Wouldn't we just be better off entering into one great big sterile orgy with those we have "genuine regard" for?

 

Whys is it always him ? why not "her " or IT ? or is it just your male chauvinism ?

I'm afraid that's not a illustration/comparison .
I've been to Hawaii, as have millions of other people. Unfortunately , there's no reliable record of anyone having met god yet.

'll let you know after I've met god.





.....

 

Neutral said :

Who heard God speaking, making any claims or commands ?
apart from men making daft claim abt a burning bush etc.,

 

Next time you hold your child, I want you to look into it's eyes and instead of saying "I love you" tell it.... "I had an overwhelming biological desire to bring you into this world and sacrifice many aspects of sense and sensibility just to care for you; the reality is that the only reason you are here, is to feed the animalistic sense within me".

Look how beautiful it is!

Are we explaining my experience of emotion here, or just beginning to understand yours?

 

Neutral, its also said that

-Stephen Hawking.


...

 

Conclusion....

One lies to themselves to believe that emotion is everything?
-or-
One believes that emotion is nothing and lies to themselves that they can experience it just the same?

Strange, for me, the first lie seems a bit more rational.....

Or do we all stop this purported lying, and discard our concepts of God along with the irrational behaviors of emotion?
Doesn't it sound meaninglessly lovely and boring? yay!

 

Atheists are rather boring to me in general..... Write me a poem wrought with a depth of emotion and meaning, paint me a picture that is filled with your passion, sing me a song that is filled with soul...... Oh right, sorry! I'll try not to laugh!

 

Well, I have read a bit of Dawkins and I have to say I disagree with your assessment. Not only did I find him painfully ignorant of the subject (religion) he was talking about, I also found him to be devoid of even the pretext of aiming for neutrality. He's a fairly cheap propagandist.

Just out of interest have you ever read Alister McGrath & Joanna Collicutt Mc Grath: "The Dawkins Delusion"? It's quite a short book, maybe you should give it a try.

 

Are you really not aware of the many past and contemporary musicians, artists, authors and poets who were/are atheists?

 

Because that is the default grammer position.

Just like ships are she's.

Your sensibility to that is absolutely irrelevant.

No one has been to mars yet either. Yet we know it is real. No one has been to any o fthe exo-planets that were recently discovered. No one heas ever held a trillion dollars - ever. No one has ever visited love. No one know what dark matter is.

Once again, the logical though process is to look at places where we should find evidence, and then see if its there.

THe problem set is not the same as proving an Island with an airport is there.

The question is, if you are motivated by such facts and are utterly convinced that there is no God ... well, you have a duty and obligation to produce said evidence.

If all you have is an easily rebutted strawman and concerns about gender? Well, not so different than any of the other atheists who hand out around here.